S.F judge to rule on police interrogation / Suspects questioned about killing of state senator's son

Published 4:00 am, Monday, May 12, 2003

2003-05-12 04:00:00 PDT San Francisco -- A San Francisco judge is set to decide Tuesday whether police acted properly when they secured statements from two men accused of the 2001 killing of a state senator's son -- and a ruling against the prosecution could doom its case.

At issue is whether authorities can use a confession that the alleged triggerman gave to police and a secretly recorded call he made from the Hall of Justice to his mother. During the call, prosecutors say, he repeated what he told police about killing Hunter McPherson. The defense is also asking the judge to throw out statements made by his co-defendant.

McPherson, the 27-year-old son of Republican state Sen. Bruce McPherson of Santa Cruz, was shot to death Nov. 17, 2001, after he refused to give up his wallet during a robbery on Potrero Hill.

The key issue being weighed by Superior Court Judge Kay Tsenin is whether to allow into evidence a call that Terrell, accused of shooting McPherson, made to his mother while in police custody.

The defense contends that Inspectors Armand Gordon and Thomas Cleary violated Terrell's right against self-incrimination during questioning that preceded that call. The prosecution argues that regardless of whether Terrell's rights were violated during the interview, he called his mother of his own free will.

Terrell told police at least 16 times during the interview Nov. 28, 2001, that he didn't want to talk to them, according to a transcript of the taped conversation.

"I don't wanna talk," Terrell said at one point.

"Huh? You don't want to talk about that?" said a police interrogator, who is not identified in the transcript.

"I don't want to talk."

"Why is that?"

"I don't wanna talk."

"You don't want to talk about that?"

"Nothing, period. Just I don't wanna talk."

Inspectors kept questioning Terrell, however, and in the end, he confessed to killing McPherson and robbing McPherson's girlfriend, Alexa Saville, even drawing diagrams for investigators that showed details of the attack.

The police questioning, the defense says, amounted to "a deliberate refusal by officers to respect Terrell's request not to talk about the case."

"It was a deliberate, repeated blatant violation of his right to remain silent," defense attorney Steve Scherr said. "They then exploited it by listening in to the call he made afterward."

Scherr was referring to Terrell's call to his mother after the hourlong interrogation. He was left alone in a police interrogation room, but the call was recorded without his knowledge. The exact content of the call has not been made public, but prosecutors say he admitted to both the killing and the robbery.

Defense attorneys argue that Terrell would never have been in a state of mind to confess to his mother if his rights hadn't been "blatantly" violated in the first place. They want Tsenin to throw out both the confession to police and the comments Terrell made in the phone call.

That would leave prosecutors little to go on. They have no physical evidence, and when asked during a pretrial hearing to identify the gunman, McPherson's girlfriend pointed to Reed, not Terrell.

Prosecutor Harry Dorfman argued in court papers that Terrell's rights hadn't been violated when he made the phone call because police weren't interrogating him then.

"The defense tries mightily to conjure the specter of police evil," Dorfman said. "It never materializes."

Dorfman discounted any connection between the confession and the call itself, saying courts have ruled that even after police violate suspects' rights against self-incrimination, suspects can still make voluntary statements that are admissible in court.

"Many suspects who feel emotional do not call anyone after confessing," Dorfman said. "Terrell could just as easily have decided to keep to himself out of shame that he killed a total stranger rather than talk with family about it."

Attorneys for Terrell and his co-defendant, Reed, also claim that police violated Reed's right against self-incrimination by promising him freedom in exchange for his statements.

While implicating Terrell, Reed said his own role in the attack was minimal.

"The record is replete with instances of express and implied promises of leniency, overbearing police tactics, trickery and deceit which tainted the entire statement," Reed's attorneys argue.

Prosecutors said no such promise was made, and that Reed was the one trying to strike a deal to buy his freedom with information about the slaying. They say Reed made his statements voluntarily.

As the two sides have argued their cases in court papers, McPherson's family has largely kept silent, other than to say they're seeking justice. After his son was killed, Bruce McPherson gave a tearful statement on the floor of the Legislature in which he said Hunter McPherson was "not only my son; we were best friends."

The family is expected to be in court Tuesday when Tsenin hears oral arguments before ruling on the defense motions.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.